After the Department of Justice and other groups objected to its initial book …

Share this story

Yesterday, the parties involved in the Google book settlement made a series of filings, all of which requested that the Amended Settlement Agreement be ratified in its current form. The last time around, when faced with objections from groups ranging from the US Department of Justice to authors, the parties withdrew their initial settlement in order to make the changes that produced the ASA. Now, faced with many of the same objections from the same exact groups, Google and the plaintiffs have decided they've gone as far as they intend to, and will fight for the approval of the ASA.

The plaintiffs' filings largely argue that the ASA meets the needs of the class they represent. As such, their filings focus on the fact that rightsholders will be receiving reasonable payments from Google, and will retain a significant degree of control over the display and sale of the works. In general, these arguments duck the larger legal issues identified by the DoJ and other groups.

Google, in contrast, tackles them head on, but not before reiterating its big-picture take on the settlement: its digitization efforts are the only thing preventing another Library of Alexandria-style tragedy, and making the results available is a public good that should override petty concerns raised by its competitors. "Approval of the settlement will open the virtual doors to the greatest library in history, without costing authors a dime they now receive or are likely to receive if the settlement is not approved," Google's filing reads. "Nor does anyone seriously dispute, though few objectors admit, that to deny the settlement will keep those library doors locked while inviting costly, fragmented litigation that could clog dockets around the country for years."

Google recognizes the outlines of the DoJ's complaints (which were also noted by a number of Google's competitors): there are concerns relating to antitrust and copyright law, and the sweeping solutions go beyond the scope of the violations that prompted the suit. Its lawyers, however, have found a variety of cases that suggest that the ASA is nothing out of the ordinary.

As for the latter issue, the brief cites a case that permits courts to "approve a settlement that 'provides broader relief than the court could have awarded after a trial.'" It also notes that other settlements have included clauses that benefit the defendants, even though it's their alleged violations that triggered the suit. The fact that the settlement absolves Google of some possible future copyright violations is reasonable, it argues, given that those violations are directly related to the ones that spawned the lawsuit.

Google is also unimpressed by the antitrust worries. Its competitors in the book scanning field, like Microsoft and Yahoo, have dropped out—"There is, in other words, no 'competition' to 'eliminate.'" As for the vending of orphaned works, Google notes that it's a new entrant to the field, with essentially no market share in books at all. As such, it can't possibly have monopoly power, and it contends, contrary to the arguments made by others, that it's unlikely to get it.

It argues that the ASA actually promotes competition by calling for Google to create an algorithm that emulates a competitive market. If there's any uncertainty about whether the algorithm might not be a complete success, it certainly doesn't show in this document. That single price/single source model also lowers the transaction costs for everyone involved, which Google contends will have competitive benefits.

The single most important transaction cost, in Google's view, is simply identifying which books are in copyright, and who owns the rights to them. By identifying as many rightsholders as it can, Google argues that it will be assisting others to enter the market, thereby fostering competition. But many of its arguments—that rightholders can back out of the agreement at any time, and that they will be notified of Google's pricing decisions—are predicated on the assumption that either rightsholders can be found, or that the fiduciary proposed by the ASA can adequately represent their interests.

Although the owners of unclaimed works will be represented by a fiduciary, the fact that Google will be given permission to use copyrighted works in the absence of explicit objections came in for a lot of criticism, as it appeared to change licensing of copyrighted works from an opt-in to an opt-out transaction. Google doesn't think that's a big deal, arguing, "Where unanimous consent is infeasible, anticipatory releases can make everyone better off and are well within the court’s power to approve."

Others, including the DoJ, argued that courts actually don't have the power to approve, as copyright law is Congress' domain. Google attempts to rebut that argument by pointing to other cases where settlements addressed items that are normally handled by other branches of the government, such as the Holocaust reparations settlement. In any case, the ASA is promoted as being well within the principles of copyright law, which is intended to promote the availability of creative works.

Clearly, Google's filing is an attempt to make the case for approving its settlement, and there are a few points in which it seems to slip past the objections of its opponents without fully addressing them—for example, the document assumes that a competitive pricing algorithm will be functionally equivalent to a competitive market, something that not everyone is convinced by. Both Google and its opponents are able to cite a significant number of precedents in their favor. It will be up to the presiding judge to sort out which of these citations are more relevant and appropriate.

Nevertheless, there are a couple of things that Google could do that would probably get most of its opponents on board: change the agreement to opt-out, and turn its existing digital archives over to a third party. The fact that Google has decided to fight for the existing ASA shows that it's not interested in either of these solutions, meaning the company definitely wants the rights to orphaned works, and it intends to leverage its digital collection in improving its data analysis capabilities.

Google is also unimpressed by the antitrust worries. Its competitors in the book scanning field, like Microsoft and Yahoo, have dropped out—"There is, in other words, no 'competition' to 'eliminate.'" As for the vending of orphaned works, Google notes that it's a new entrant to the field, with essentially no market share in books at all. As such, it can't possibly have monopoly pawer, and it contends, contrary to the arguments made by others, that it's unlikely to get it.

And the same could be said of Microsoft 30 some odd years ago when it introduced DOS, then Windows. What can we do now, to prevent such a massive lock in?

These orphaned works going in to what would essentially be a new Quasi-Public Domain would be great for everyone. There are really only three groups of people who need a voice in this issue.Author, Publisher, and Everyone Else.Author - If opting in would widen his sales audience, if opting out would see no net change, if doing neither leaving the work orphaned would widen his audience, and may increase sales of his other books. If the author is dead then this should be a free piece of Public Domain and only isn't due to corrupt, anti-competitive copyright laws.Publisher - I don't think anyone really cares about, since they are the book equivalent of the MAFIAA, but this would probably drive up sales for them as well.Everyone - This would be a huge benefit for humanity. Especially if the orphaned works were made available for free. This increase in good information being available to everyone can do so much good in the world.

It's not about greed, but Google doing an end run around copyright law. Like it or not, the current law requires you to get permission from the rights-holder PRIOR to using something copyrighted. The Google Settlement would allow them to use copyrighted material without even attempting to contact the rights-holder, and then use the the copyrighted material until the copyright holder opts out.

I routinely sign copyright release forms when submitting manuscripts to journals in exchange for them publishing my work (I did so just this morning). However, at some point I may want to publish a textbook, and I shouldn't need to tell Google "you don't have my permission", they should have to ask me for permission. I'll probably grant it, depending on the terms, but I shoudn't have blanket terms forced on me without any input from me.

Originally posted by ctpmn:These orphaned works going in to what would essentially be a new Quasi-Public Domain would be great for everyone. There are really only three groups of people who need a voice in this issue.Author, Publisher, and Everyone Else.Author - If opting in would widen his sales audience, if opting out would see no net change, if doing neither leaving the work orphaned would widen his audience, and may increase sales of his other books. If the author is dead then this should be a free piece of Public Domain and only isn't due to corrupt, anti-competitive copyright laws.Publisher - I don't think anyone really cares about, since they are the book equivalent of the MAFIAA, but this would probably drive up sales for them as well.Everyone - This would be a huge benefit for humanity. Especially if the orphaned works were made available for free. This increase in good information being available to everyone can do so much good in the world.

It's sad when greed halts progress.

I agree 100% with everything you are saying there. But to leave such a task to a corporate entity (= "Google") that is responsible to no-one but its shareholders, and to expect said entity to complete these tasks solely for the betterment of humankind, seems somewhat naive.

But many of its arguments—that rightholders can back out of the agreement at any time, and will be notified of Google's pricing decisions—are predicated on the assumption that either rightsholders can be found, or that the fiduciary proposed by the ASA can adequately represent their interests.

Well, it seems to me that if copyrights holders can be found this makes the question of the "ASA fiduciary" moot, since they can opt out if they don't like it. If they can't be found then this more or less puts such works in an orphaned category until an owner emerges who can prove he owns the rights. Seems like a good system to me--especially considering we aren't talking about Google usurping current copyrights which are prominently and readily identifiable--we're talking about presumably orphaned works, aren't we?

I don't see where Google thinks it has a case for ignoring copyright law and getting away with it. It seems to be just that they're A) doing something good, B) nobody else is doing it (anymore), C) ???. Why don't you lobby congress for significant copyright reforms, Google? Or push for a government-sponsored digitization effort for public domain works? Wouldn't that be a more far-reaching and significant way to fight the good fight?

Yes, we arguably need a broad digitization effort. It's something I really want to happen before I die so that I can say the world will be a better place than it was when I came into it. No, I don't think Google is going about it the right way.

I think its fucking absurd that I can write something, and by default those fuckers at Google have any say in anything at all regarding it.

If it was placed into public domain but without a written contract stating so (as is normally the case), does Google by default all of these extra rights?

Opt in is the bare minimum requirement, anything else after that requires negotiation of all parties (including a public domain representative) and all levels of government, in all countries (since its delusional to believe this will ever be capped at the US). Hell, if Google can jam this shit down everyones throat in the most powerful nation in the world, the others are just lunch meat by comparison.

Originally posted by effgee:I agree 100% with everything you are saying there. But to leave such a task to a corporate entity (= "Google") that is responsible to no-one but its shareholders, and to expect said entity to complete these tasks solely for the betterment of humankind, seems somewhat naive.

Let me ask, if it is naive to expect Google a corporate entity to complete these tasks.. what is the alternative? And by alternative, I mean someone or something wanting to do it rather than simply suggesting that the government should. The sad state of affairs is that in my opinion, there isn't anyone of higher standing willing to do such. Even more so, there isn't anyone at all other than Google willing to do it.

Originally posted by crmarvin42:It's not about greed, but Google doing an end run around copyright law.

But isn't it?? If you're alive, and have a copyright to your book, and Googles ends up selling it, you still get paid... it's not like they are trying to give away (or keep all the profits of) your copyrighted works.

"Approval of the settlement will open the virtual doors to the greatest library in history, without costing authors a dime they now receive or are likely to receive if the settlement is not approved,"

So, authors keep their copyrights and get paid, publishers get paid, and the public gets access to thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of books no longer available in print... And to top it all off, if you don't like it, and don't want your book on their virtual shelves, all you have to do is say so.

Instead, we should go around the world, find each and every person that wrote a book or is related to someone who is deceased and that wrote a book, in order to find every rights holder alive before moving forward? That's the better solution here?

No, the real issue at hand here is simple. Competing publishers wish they had thought of all this first and would much rather keep all their profits in house... period.

Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:Why don't you lobby congress for significant copyright reforms, Google? Or push for a government-sponsored digitization effort for public domain works? Wouldn't that be a more far-reaching and significant way to fight the good fight?

Google doesn't lobby for copyright reform, or introduce bills to Congress proposing that this be a government program, because they're not a political action group. They're a company, and they want to spend money and effort on this for two reasons; because its the right thing to do (the leaders of Google are conscious of the state of society), and because it can make them some money. Making money is a perfectly legitimate goal of any for-profit company. If you want to start a non-profit political action group and push for those goals, go right ahead. Google might even agree with your efforts; I know I would. Well, the first one anyway. The digitization effort is likely to be expensive, and I'd be perfectly happy knowing that a company is spending some of their revenue on it instead of the government spending some of my revenue.

Originally posted by Traddy:I think its fucking absurd that I can write something, and by default those fuckers at Google have any say in anything at all regarding it.

If your name is John Doe and your work states, "John Doe, Copyright 2010, all rights reserved" then I don't think Google will be interested in digitizing it, unless I'm completely failing to understand what this is all about.

I thought we were talking about orphaned works for which no clear and prominent rights could be readily established--especially, works that are out of print, and which as a result are paying no one anything, even if the rights-holders can be found. It seems to me that if an out-of-print rights-holder can indeed be found that he would presumably have little or no disagreement with Google paying him something for the continuing distribution of his out-of-print work, as he would be currently earning nothing for it at the time because it was out-of-print and generating no revenue at all.

People don't seem to get that making the Book Settlement opt-in makes it worthless. The value is in going after works that are orphaned. Even an out-of-print book could be independently negotiated between the author/publisher and Google, but an orphaned book is just doomed to fade into obscurity.

And as for the argument that the settlement makes an end run around copyright law:

quote:

The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

An orphaned book is a hindrance to science and the arts because it represents information that is being under-utilized. The public is not benefiting from it, and the author is not either.

I believe it is, but keep in mind that there are authors out there that want full control, and in some cases like JD Salinger, prior to his death, no further publication of that work, even of orphaned works and want google to not touch them at all. Should we ignore their desires as well, and require them to constantly be checking online repositories to see if someone is ignoroing their wishes? They shouldn't have to, copyright states the right's holder has the right to do whatever he wants with his material (publish or not publish as he sees fit) and no one can just arbitrarily just take over that right. I use JD Salinger because I know he is probably the most well known for his tremendous desire of control over his works and derivatives there of.

But isn't it?? If you're alive, and have a copyright to your book, and Googles ends up selling it, you still get paid... it's not like they are trying to give away (or keep all the profits of) your copyrighted works.

I didn't ask Google to sell it. Maybe I disapprove of Google. Maybe I want to give exclusive publishing rights to Amazon via Kindle or something.

Google should not have the power to do WTFever with my stuff just because of a settlement that I never signed on with.

quote:

"Approval of the settlement will open the virtual doors to the greatest library in history, without costing authors a dime they now receive or are likely to receive if the settlement is not approved,"

So, authors keep their copyrights and get paid, publishers get paid, and the public gets access to thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of books no longer available in print... And to top it all off, if you don't like it, and don't want your book on their virtual shelves, all you have to do is say so.

Again, copyright law doesn't say, "Unless it's Google, then they can violate my copyrights all they want unless I tell them to stop." It applies to everyone. Therefore, it is illegal for Google to do this.

quote:

And as for the argument that the settlement makes an end run around copyright law:

So you're making the argument that current copyright law is not congruent with the Constitution. It turns out that we have a body that exists primarily to decide such things. So why isn't Google taking a case to the Supreme Court, arguing that current copyright law is in violation of the Constitution?

I believe it is, but keep in mind that there are authors out there that want full control, and in some cases like JD Salinger, prior to his death, no further publication of that work, even of orphaned works and want google to not touch them at all. Should we ignore their desires as well, and require them to constantly be checking online repositories to see if someone is ignoroing their wishes? They shouldn't have to, copyright states the right's holder has the right to do whatever he wants with his material (publish or not publish as he sees fit) and no one can just arbitrarily just take over that right. I use JD Salinger because I know he is probably the most well known for his tremendous desire of control over his works and derivatives there of.

Yes, we should ignore their desires because copyright was built into the law to promote the distribution of knowledge and art, not the hoarding or isolation of it. The whole point of copyright is to get the info out there where it can do some good, and it does this by providing incentive for people to create and distribute, not create and lock away in a safe.

If you want your words sequestered from the unwashed masses, don't rely on copyright to do so, because that's the exact opposite of its intent.

Perhaps, though, a federal registry of copyright claims could be made. Make it a database that anyone can access and give copyright owners a period of time to register their claims along with contact information. Failure to register, say, within a few years, would make the given work fall into public domain. Maybe orphaned works which go unclaimed could be claimed by the government for 5 years or so and the revenue from that used to pay for the system before entering public domain.

Whether GOOGLE is worried about "monopoly" is completely irrelevant. I am sure Microsoft didn't "worry" about monopoly, either, when they had a 90% or better lock on operating systems.

The thing to do is deny this right now. Completely. And devise a better, more public-oriented solution. The prospect of allowing one private organization to have control over all of this should be raising alarms everywhere.

Originally posted by mltdwn:... I use JD Salinger because I know he is probably the most well known for his tremendous desire of control over his works and derivatives there of.

Fair enough, but I would think works like these for which it is generally known that the rights-holder is alive and well would not be of interest to Google in the first place, as it is not just "out of print" which concerns them, but "orphaned" primarily.

I see your point, but I have to say that unless JD had exercised due diligence as to his desires he would not have known whether his wishes had been upheld. I think this is the case whether we talk about Google or any other book-publishing entity. Indeed, this raises the question as to just how it is that a rights-holder discovers that his rights have been infringed--if not by due diligence.

Originally posted by Jane Q. Public:Whether GOOGLE is worried about "monopoly" is completely irrelevant. I am sure Microsoft didn't "worry" about monopoly, either, when they had a 90% or better lock on operating systems.

The thing to do is deny this right now. Completely. And devise a better, more public-oriented solution. The prospect of allowing one private organization to have control over all of this should be raising alarms everywhere.

Have people forgotten history so quickly?

Well, Google does no evil AND they will give everyone free 1Gbps interwebs so...GO GOOGLE!

Yes, the above is sarcasm and quite frankly, Google seems to be a hell of a lot more arrogant then Microsoft ever was, at least Microsoft knew what they were doing was illegal, Google doesnt even have that decency, it seems.

Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:Why don't you lobby congress for significant copyright reforms, Google? Or push for a government-sponsored digitization effort for public domain works? Wouldn't that be a more far-reaching and significant way to fight the good fight?

Google doesn't lobby for copyright reform, or introduce bills to Congress proposing that this be a government program, because they're not a political action group.

I think it more likely that Google doesn't push for copyright reform because that would be vastly more expensive and difficult than obtaining this settlement has been. They'd spend decades lobbying every major signatory to the Berne conventions, and every member of the WTO, before they could achieve what they want via lobbying and legal reform, for the simple reason that copyright law has been written into so many international treaties and organizations that changing your country's laws in any significant way would make you an international pariah.

IMO, Google is pushing this settlement because they think it's the best they can do. It's really, really depressing to think that they're probably right. I still have substantial reservations about the settlement, and would rather see it not pass, particularly since the US congress might take up orphan works here in a couple of years. If that effort fails, then we might be in a position where we wished Google's settlement had passed.

Originally posted by wordsworm:Change 'opt out' for 'opt in' and I think it would be fine.

Perhaps, though, a federal registry of copyright claims could be made. Make it a database that anyone can access and give copyright owners a period of time to register their claims along with contact information. Failure to register, say, within a few years, would make the given work fall into public domain. Maybe orphaned works which go unclaimed could be claimed by the government for 5 years or so and the revenue from that used to pay for the system before entering public domain.

Something like that would seem to me a compromise.

That would violate US law, and changing US law to make it legal would drop the US out of the WTO, and the Berne conventions on copyright, for starters. No legislature is going to take deliberate action to get the US expelled from the WTO and every significant international trade treaty in the last 30 years.

Originally posted by Jane Q. Public:Whether GOOGLE is worried about "monopoly" is completely irrelevant. I am sure Microsoft didn't "worry" about monopoly, either, when they had a 90% or better lock on operating systems.

The thing to do is deny this right now. Completely. And devise a better, more public-oriented solution. The prospect of allowing one private organization to have control over all of this should be raising alarms everywhere.

Have people forgotten history so quickly?

Who else is going to do it, and offer terms as friendly to the "public good" as Google is offering?

Yeah, I don't like that Google is going to have control over this. But they're better than any other private group, and likely better than any government group (which, let's face it, are likely to be controlled by private groups anyway).

I think its fucking absurd that I can write something, and by default those fuckers at Google have any say in anything at all regarding it.

If it was placed into public domain but without a written contract stating so (as is normally the case), does Google by default all of these extra rights?

Opt in is the bare minimum requirement, anything else after that requires negotiation of all parties (including a public domain representative) and all levels of government, in all countries (since its delusional to believe this will ever be capped at the US). Hell, if Google can jam this shit down everyones throat in the most powerful nation in the world, the others are just lunch meat by comparison.

I am not necessarily a fan of GOOGLE's proposed settlement, and I can understand why you would be frustrated by the idea that you would have to "opt out" if you don't want your work(s) included.

On the other hand, I believe current copyright laws have been skewed so far in favor of rights holders that I have little sympathy for someone who sees the minimal effort required to "opt out" as a significant burden, when it allows a chance to save orphaned works from oblivion.

I see the benefit to the public by having a mechanism to save, and distribute orphaned works. Any sort of "opt in" requirement would make saving orphaned works effectively unworkable. Yes, you might see this compiling of works as an end-run around copyright laws. But if those same laws had not been so skewed, a huge portion of these works would already be in the public domain.

Although I am uncertain how I feel about the settlement, I do like the idea of creating the digital library. And it does feel to me like a "Fair Use" on a public scale, the same way brick and mortar libraries do. I hope we could see effective copyright reform moving things back toward the public good, but at least this project could keep some books from disappearing until then (if it ever happens).

wordsworm:

quote:

Change 'opt out' for 'opt in' and I think it would be fine.

Perhaps, though, a federal registry of copyright claims could be made. Make it a database that anyone can access and give copyright owners a period of time to register their claims along with contact information. Failure to register, say, within a few years, would make the given work fall into public domain. Maybe orphaned works which go unclaimed could be claimed by the government for 5 years or so and the revenue from that used to pay for the system before entering public domain.

Something like that would seem to me a compromise.

No changing "opt out" to "opt in" would completely kill one of the purposes of the project (as others have also stated in this thread). To give up "opt out" is not a compromise, it is dooming the goal of the saving orphaned works to certain failure.

It was not that long ago that to get a copyright in the US you did have to register your work with the library of congress (and pay a small fee, IIRC). I think they switched to our current "everything has copyright the instant it is written" system to bring the US copyright more in line with international norms. So you are suggesting a system similar to what we used to have (except the bit about government claiming orphaned works)... Sigh, I doubt we will ever go back there.

Originally posted by Jane Q. Public:Whether GOOGLE is worried about "monopoly" is completely irrelevant. I am sure Microsoft didn't "worry" about monopoly, either, when they had a 90% or better lock on operating systems.

That example nicely illustrates how power corrupts. And the need for checks, balances, and expiring powers.

quote:

The thing to do is deny this right now. Completely. And devise a better, more public-oriented solution. The prospect of allowing one private organization to have control over all of this should be raising alarms everywhere.

I disagree; incremental changes by imperfect solutions can be beneficial. Current copyright law is dooming a large body of works to be lost, and Google has a solution. Dragging this issue out applies pressure for change and makes people aware of what was a fairly invisible problem. I'd rather fight for control over something that was saved, than fight over whether it should be saved.

I think it more likely that Google doesn't push for copyright reform because that would be vastly more expensive and difficult than obtaining this settlement has been. They'd spend decades lobbying every major signatory to the Berne conventions, and every member of the WTO, before they could achieve what they want via lobbying and legal reform, for the simple reason that copyright law has been written into so many international treaties and organizations that changing your country's laws in any significant way would make you an international pariah.

IMO, Google is pushing this settlement because they think it's the best they can do. It's really, really depressing to think that they're probably right. I still have substantial reservations about the settlement, and would rather see it not pass, particularly since the US congress might take up orphan works here in a couple of years. If that effort fails, then we might be in a position where we wished Google's settlement had passed.

Thanks for your summary about the difficulties facing anyone who wants a more sane copyright system.

I guess the main difference we have is that I am more pessimistic that the US congress will ever come up with a solution to the orphan works issue that is better than what GOOGLE offers us. I do agree that if the GOOGLE settlement stands, it will further reduce the chances of congress doing anything about orphaned works. So I can understand why you want it to fail.

Originally posted by crmarvin42:It's not about greed, but Google doing an end run around copyright law. Like it or not, the current law requires you to get permission from the rights-holder PRIOR to using something copyrighted. The Google Settlement would allow them to use copyrighted material without even attempting to contact the rights-holder, and then use the the copyrighted material until the copyright holder opts out.

I routinely sign copyright release forms when submitting manuscripts to journals in exchange for them publishing my work (I did so just this morning). However, at some point I may want to publish a textbook, and I shouldn't need to tell Google "you don't have my permission", they should have to ask me for permission. I'll probably grant it, depending on the terms, but I shoudn't have blanket terms forced on me without any input from me.

Yeah I don't understand at all how this settlement doesn't contradict current copyright law. I'm not saying that our copyright laws are just, but I don't see how this agreement could possibly be legal unless Congress passed laws enacting it.

And as to Google's altruism: Unless they're not making a profit they need to stop acting like they're saving the world's knowledge for that reason alone. This is for them a business decision and they could make a lot of money off of it. People should keep that in mind when they have their idea of Google as a company that "dose no evil" in mind...

Also if there is a certain work that Google digitizes why should they have the rights to the digitization? If they digitized a book I wrote and couldn't find me I see no moral reason why anyone else couldn't just download it (by purchasing it presumably) from Google and then just reselling it themselves. Any other company that just stripped Google's archive would have just about as much moral authority to make money off of the works as Google. (This goes even if Google only archives them and doesn't sell them, but only makes money off of advertising/data mining/etc.).

Google, in contrast, tackles them head on, but not before reiterating its big-picture take on the settlement: its digitization efforts are the only thing preventing another Library of Alexandria-style tragedy, and making the results available is a public good that should override petty concerns raised by its competitors.

Ridiculous attempt at alarmism. Google wants to hold a monopoly on searching books and they don't want to pay anyone for the right. End of story.

That would violate US law, and changing US law to make it legal would drop the US out of the WTO, and the Berne conventions on copyright, for starters. No legislature is going to take deliberate action to get the US expelled from the WTO and every significant international trade treaty in the last 30 years.

I guess the main difference we have is that I am more pessimistic that the US congress will ever come up with a solution to the orphan works issue that is better than what GOOGLE offers us. I do agree that if the GOOGLE settlement stands, it will further reduce the chances of congress doing anything about orphaned works. So I can understand why you want it to fail.

It's not so much that I want them to fail, as that I believe that the settlement is both deeply problematic WRT the law, and that it's a poor alternative to legislative solutions to orphaned works. That is, I think that the settlement is fine, except that it'd end up in the US Supreme Court just as fast as someone could get it there. I think that the court would have to come up with a ruling, which would probably include wording to the effect that one must look to congress, not the courts, for solutions to these problems.

Which would dump the problem back into congress' lap, after the 5-10 year detour through the US court system. I'd prefer to save everyone the time and money, and keep the problem in congress. Let all the publishers and Google together scream for a solution. Nobody's listening to us on the subject.

Originally posted by lyme:Let me ask, if it is naive to expect Google a corporate entity to complete these tasks.. what is the alternative? And by alternative, I mean someone or something wanting to do it rather than simply suggesting that the government should. The sad state of affairs is that in my opinion, there isn't anyone of higher standing willing to do such. Even more so, there isn't anyone at all other than Google willing to do it.

Choice: Them or nothing?

Agreed, "them or nothing" should never have been the only choice in the first place. The thought that a considerable portion of humankind's cultural heritage falls into the hands of a corporate entity is appalling to me. But I guess a people that cares so little about these parts of their heritage that they'd rather give them up for good than to invest in preserving them themselves doesn't really deserve it any other way.

Originally posted by crmarvin42:It's not about greed, but Google doing an end run around copyright law. Like it or not, the current law requires you to get permission from the rights-holder PRIOR to using something copyrighted. The Google Settlement would allow them to use copyrighted material without even attempting to contact the rights-holder, and then use the the copyrighted material until the copyright holder opts out.

I routinely sign copyright release forms when submitting manuscripts to journals in exchange for them publishing my work (I did so just this morning). However, at some point I may want to publish a textbook, and I shouldn't need to tell Google "you don't have my permission", they should have to ask me for permission. I'll probably grant it, depending on the terms, but I shoudn't have blanket terms forced on me without any input from me.

The only thing Google does without your permission if you are 'known' is include your works in their search. Why would that affect you in any manner other than "OMG people know what I've written!"

Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:I don't see where Google thinks it has a case for ignoring copyright law and getting away with it. It seems to be just that they're A) doing something good, B) nobody else is doing it (anymore), C) ???. Why don't you lobby congress for significant copyright reforms, Google? Or push for a government-sponsored digitization effort for public domain works? Wouldn't that be a more far-reaching and significant way to fight the good fight?

Yes, we arguably need a broad digitization effort. It's something I really want to happen before I die so that I can say the world will be a better place than it was when I came into it. No, I don't think Google is going about it the right way.

I don't see where people can legitimately claim scanning a book into a search engine is a legitimate 'violation' of the spirit of copyright law. So I guess the real issue is where your bias is placed. Google started this project firmly believing they were in the right. Yes, they are using this settlement to push an agenda to make things even 'better' but even if this settlement isn't approved I would highly question the idea that the original project (scanning books in, making their text available by search, selling books they have permission to sell online) is in any way a violation.

It's not so much that I want them to fail, as that I believe that the settlement is both deeply problematic WRT the law, and that it's a poor alternative to legislative solutions to orphaned works. That is, I think that the settlement is fine, except that it'd end up in the US Supreme Court just as fast as someone could get it there. I think that the court would have to come up with a ruling, which would probably include wording to the effect that one must look to congress, not the courts, for solutions to these problems.

Which would dump the problem back into congress' lap, after the 5-10 year detour through the US court system. I'd prefer to save everyone the time and money, and keep the problem in congress. Let all the publishers and Google together scream for a solution. Nobody's listening to us on the subject.

Thank you for the clarification. I do see how that scenario would be a "worst of both worlds" sort of result.

I feel strongly that congress has created a lot of problems, of which the orphaned work problem is arguably the largest, by granting ever longer copyrights. They don't seem to even recognize that there are problems.

I suspect it likely you are right that congress will have to become involved for any clean up to stand up in courts long term. The cynic in me now expects that 5-10 year detour, followed by a 5-10 year discussion in congress, resulting in another 20 year copyright extension, with nothing to help out on orphaned works.

Originally posted by ctpmn:These orphaned works going in to what would essentially be a new Quasi-Public Domain would be great for everyone. There are really only three groups of people who need a voice in this issue.Author, Publisher, and Everyone Else.Author - If opting in would widen his sales audience, if opting out would see no net change, if doing neither leaving the work orphaned would widen his audience, and may increase sales of his other books. If the author is dead then this should be a free piece of Public Domain and only isn't due to corrupt, anti-competitive copyright laws.Publisher - I don't think anyone really cares about, since they are the book equivalent of the MAFIAA, but this would probably drive up sales for them as well.Everyone - This would be a huge benefit for humanity. Especially if the orphaned works were made available for free. This increase in good information being available to everyone can do so much good in the world.

It's sad when greed halts progress.

I agree 100% with everything you are saying there. But to leave such a task to a corporate entity (= "Google") that is responsible to no-one but its shareholders, and to expect said entity to complete these tasks solely for the betterment of humankind, seems somewhat naive.

Well, form yourself a foundation and do it yourself. Either that or simply BUY some of these works once they become available. Yes, BUY them and help preserve them by archiving them so that it's not just Google that has the proverbial basket with all the eggs.

Of course that's the whole point here. Once Google makes their first copy, then quite literally EVERY LIBRARY ON THE PLANET can also have a copy.

I believe it is, but keep in mind that there are authors out there that want full control, and in some cases like JD Salinger, prior to his death, no further publication of that work, even of orphaned works and want google to not touch them at all. Should we ignore their desires as well, and require them to constantly be checking online repositories to see if someone is ignoroing their wishes? They shouldn't have to, copyright states the right's holder has the right to do whatever he wants with his material (publish or not publish as he sees fit) and no one can just arbitrarily just take over that right. I use JD Salinger because I know he is probably the most well known for his tremendous desire of control over his works and derivatives there of.

Suppression of publication should simply not be possible. If you don't want to publish your work, then any and all copyrights should be permanently revoked. If you don't want your stuff "out there" then don't put it "out there" to begin with.